AuthorTopic: India vs Australia Test series (Read 27219 times)

It is worrying that even if England seemed to bat better or as well as the Aus batsmen in India (with obvious Smith exception) and yet Aus were so much more competitive due to their bowling! Some of the Aussie pace bowlers seem to be looking better. But in particular the spin options who take wickets - so frustrating not to be able to find a high quality spin bowler!

Warner is a just a dirty slogger on flat dead Australian pitches. He's clueless against swing or spin hence his pitiful returns in England, New Zealand, India and Sri Lanka. On dead Australian pitches he can merrily slog his cross bat shots. Only once in his career has he had anything noteworthy outside Australia, IIRC he scored 3 hundreds in South Africa 3 years ago. Again he was dropped around 8/9 times in that series.

Warner is a just a dirty slogger on flat dead Australian pitches. He's clueless against swing or spin hence his pitiful returns in England, New Zealand, India and Sri Lanka. On dead Australian pitches he can merrily slog his cross bat shots. Only once in his career has he had anything noteworthy outside Australia, IIRC he scored 3 hundreds in South Africa 3 years ago. Again he was dropped around 8/9 times in that series.

As a slogger hater even I'll admit that he's a bit better than a buttler type slogger. However, he is a flat track bully who hnsaldy he plays a lot on so comes up with stats which make him appear better than he is.

It is worrying that even if England seemed to bat better or as well as the Aus batsmen in India (with obvious Smith exception) and yet Aus were so much more competitive due to their bowling! Some of the Aussie pace bowlers seem to be looking better. But in particular the spin options who take wickets - so frustrating not to be able to find a high quality spin bowler!

You still aren't taking into account the difference in pitches Pete... there was daylight between the quality of pitches between the 2 series. All you have to do is look at the run scoring list from both series. Only the top 4 batsmen in the Aus v Ind series scored over 200 runs. The top 14 batsmen in the Eng v ind series scored over 200 runs.

Logged

This information is for educational purposes only.Under no circumstances can this be copied or reproduced in any way without the permission of the author

You still aren't taking into account the difference in pitches Pete... there was daylight between the quality of pitches between the 2 series. All you have to do is look at the run scoring list from both series. Only the top 4 batsmen in the Aus v Ind series scored over 200 runs. The top 14 batsmen in the Eng v ind series scored over 200 runs.

I agree with @petehosk. Though pitches were certainly more favorable to batting in England tour, Aussies were more effective in mounting a challenge this time around. OKeefe was a mystery factor which worked out very well and gave Aussies a dream start. Lyon, an average spinner when compared to Shane Warne, demonstrated ruthless determination to keep pitching the ball in the cracks and exploit them. Such a level of determination or attack was missing from Rashid or Ansari. Effectiveness of aussie spinners made a big difference. Starc & Cummins were bowling quite fast and it was difficult to score off them. When both fast & spin bowlers were tightening the belt, India either collapsed or just sneaked through with just enough runs to defend the game. Honestly, Ranchi test, a batting friendly track, was the only place where India managed to score 400+. Rest of the test matches they struggled to cross 300.

England came in with a strong batting line up, but their bowling left a lot to be desired. Fast bowlers were ineffective - Indian batsman had no problems facing and scoring runs of them. Spinners were leaking runs - consistency and determination to exploit the cracks on surface - this was missing from Rashid & Ansari. Overall bowling unit wasn't firing in India and early departure of Anderson didn't help the cause.

Smith was the only consistent batsman - who India considered a challenge and were unable to break down until the final test match. On England's side - Root showed resistance but didn't create the fear factor - India were able to get him out consistently albeit after conceding some runs. Cook 2016 performance was more subdued when compared with his 2012 stats in India. Stokes, Hameed, Jennings etc played a great cameo once in a while but were consistently getting out as well. Once India managed to scalp - Cook, Root, Stokes .. they were on their way to knock of the rest very quickly. This didn't happen with Australia - since Smith was given them a hard time by scoring quick runs while rest of his team was falling apart, while aussie bowlers were quick to stranglehold the Indian top-order and effectively prevent them from scoring anything beyond double digits.

Bowling consistency, despite not having the best spinners in the world, ensured Aussie success against India in the sub-continent. England spinners who stared off well in Ahmedabad showed rapid disintegration of performance as the series proceeded further.

I agree with @petehosk. Though pitches were certainly more favorable to batting in England tour, Aussies were more effective in mounting a challenge this time around. OKeefe was a mystery factor which worked out very well and gave Aussies a dream start. Lyon, an average spinner when compared to Shane Warne, demonstrated ruthless determination to keep pitching the ball in the cracks and exploit them. Such a level of determination or attack was missing from Rashid or Ansari. Effectiveness of aussie spinners made a big difference. Starc & Cummins were bowling quite fast and it was difficult to score off them. When both fast & spin bowlers were tightening the belt, India either collapsed or just sneaked through with just enough runs to defend the game. Honestly, Ranchi test, a batting friendly track, was the only place where India managed to score 400+. Rest of the test matches they struggled to cross 300.

England came in with a strong batting line up, but their bowling left a lot to be desired. Fast bowlers were ineffective - Indian batsman had no problems facing and scoring runs of them. Spinners were leaking runs - consistency and determination to exploit the cracks on surface - this was missing from Rashid & Ansari. Overall bowling unit wasn't firing in India and early departure of Anderson didn't help the cause.

Smith was the only consistent batsman - who India considered a challenge and were unable to break down until the final test match. On England's side - Root showed resistance but didn't create the fear factor - India were able to get him out consistently albeit after conceding some runs. Cook 2016 performance was more subdued when compared with his 2012 stats in India. Stokes, Hameed, Jennings etc played a great cameo once in a while but were consistently getting out as well. Once India managed to scalp - Cook, Root, Stokes .. they were on their way to knock of the rest very quickly. This didn't happen with Australia - since Smith was given them a hard time by scoring quick runs while rest of his team was falling apart, while aussie bowlers were quick to stranglehold the Indian top-order and effectively prevent them from scoring anything beyond double digits.

Bowling consistency, despite not having the best spinners in the world, ensured Aussie success against India in the sub-continent. England spinners who stared off well in Ahmedabad showed rapid disintegration of performance as the series proceeded further.

And the reason both teams scored many more runs? Not pitches? They were batsmen friendly not bowler friendly. Simple. England scored easily and India scored easily and of course the difference between the 2 sides came down to India's superior spin tandem in Ashwin and Jadeja

Rashid took more wickets than Lyon and O'Keefe and Ansari only bowled 43 overs compared to Rashids 230+ overs. And comparing Lyon to a Warne is ludicrous. Not even the same style of bowler let alone in the same era. Most spin bowlers are average when compared to Shane Warne.

« Last Edit: April 02, 2017, 11:50:29 AM by Number4 »

Logged

This information is for educational purposes only.Under no circumstances can this be copied or reproduced in any way without the permission of the author

And the reason both teams scored many more runs? Not pitches? They were batsmen friendly not bowler friendly. Simple. England scored easily and India scored easily and of course the difference between the 2 sides came down to India's superior spin tandem in Ashwin and Jadeja

Rashid took more wickets than Lyon and O'Keefe and Ansari only bowled 43 overs compared to Rashids 230+ overs. And comparing Lyon to a Warne is ludicrous. Not even the same style of bowler let alone in the same era. Most spin bowlers are average when compared to Shane Warne.

Agree no:4, the wickets England raced were easier to bat on by a long way. The fact stokes did well points to it as he's a flat track player not when it's tough generally. Root as you say did well but he again keeps getting out before winning games etc.

England didn't deserve to get anything from the tour, aus could have. Salsa though, aus did lack fight in the last game as they played some daft attacking shots

And the reason both teams scored many more runs? Not pitches? They were batsmen friendly not bowler friendly. Simple. England scored easily and India scored easily and of course the difference between the 2 sides came down to India's superior spin tandem in Ashwin and Jadeja

I never said pitches were not batting friendly. Both teams scored but it finally came down to a bowling unit which was firing better than the other one.

Rashid took more wickets than Lyon and O'Keefe and Ansari only bowled 43 overs compared to Rashids 230+ overs. And comparing Lyon to a Warne is ludicrous. Not even the same style of bowler let alone in the same era. Most spin bowlers are average when compared to Shane Warne.

I think the stats which you have presented proves a point. Rashid bowled 230 plus overs in 5 test matches getting 23 wickets while conceding 800+ runs. Keefe & Lyon bowled around two-thirds of Rashid's share but they still seem to rate better given the runs conceded, wickets taken and they played only 4 test matches.

Lyon is not comparable to Shane Warne, but he came in Australia's lead spinner and he held his nerve to walk away with rich harvest of wickets while consistently posting challenges to Indian batsmen. Rashid didn't put up any difficulties for India, well i know you are going to argue this as boils down to the pitch .. so will concede then ... Pitches made the big difference between two tours, not the bowlers and certainly not their consistency.

England's lack of quality spin is becoming a weakness. Would very much prefer Mason Crane being given some game time ahead of Rashid. We desperately need a genuinely good spinner. I don't follow the Ali/Rashid/Root argument- they simply haven't got the control of a genuine test match spinner. Yes, occasionally they'll pick up wickets- but even a faulty clock is right twice a day.